1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Checking Army in game?

Discussion in 'Rules' started by Jonno, Sep 23, 2022.

?

Checking Army during a competitive game is

  1. Allowed and ok

    34 vote(s)
    66.7%
  2. Allowed but not done

    11 vote(s)
    21.6%
  3. Not allowed

    4 vote(s)
    7.8%
  4. Unsure and we do it

    1 vote(s)
    2.0%
  5. Unsure and we don't do it

    3 vote(s)
    5.9%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Jonno

    Jonno Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2018
    Messages:
    91
    Likes Received:
    149
    What do you feel about checking Army in game in a tournament? I have never seen it happen, but have always previously thought that it is not ok as it may reveal private information, eg the exact profile of a lone Camo marker. Nowadays I think it would be helpful for less experienced players to have an even footing and a more pleasant play experience, which I encourage, even though the time spent on Army is probably better used elsewhere. It does let someone quickly check important information that is relevant this order like if this Impersonation Marker could have a template weapon, or if this sectorial has any Hidden Deployment troops.
     
  2. Diphoration

    Diphoration Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Messages:
    1,349
    Likes Received:
    2,533
    Reset the Clock

    I personally don't think it's an issue.

    There is a distinction between "Can a Fusilier be LT?" and "Is this Fusilier LT?".

    I think Army is just part of the rules, the same as the rulebook is.

    Where there can be issue is with time management, but this isn't an issue about checking Army, but an issue about time management. You can certainly check informations in a timely manner, or even enforce perfect time split with chess clocks.

    I think being able to know if a certain faction has access to Hidden Deployment or Combat Jump (which you can check within a couple of seconds in Army) is very important. It's not about knowing -if- they have one in their list, but if the possibiltiy exists. I think a game loss because your opponent played around a "Noctifer" while playing versus Morats or around a drop troop while playing versus JSA is not going to be an interesting game.

    Just because something is Hidden Information, doesn't mean that it will not be trivial to figure out. If you want to have uncertainty in your list, you need to actually make a sensible effort at listbuilding.

    If you have only a single trooper with WIP14 and your LT WIP roll was 14, then even if the identity of your LT is "private information", then it's trivial to figure out. The same concept applies to a lot of things. Knowing what the profiles can be is different than what the profiles are.

    Similarly, if your list only contains a single trooper that has a LT profile available, it's a list making decision that you made. It's potentially greedy, probably came with some other trade offs, but it comes with the consequences of being trivial to solve.
     
    #2 Diphoration, Sep 23, 2022
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2022
    LeGweg, wes-o-matic, Lesh' and 13 others like this.
  3. Robock

    Robock Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,234
    Likes Received:
    852
    I don't think that knowing exactly what can and can't be, aka encyclopedic knowledge, should be an important part of the game/tournament. But at the same time, I think Army is not an efficient tool to do it mid-game so I'll vote "don't do it" (under the assumption that games are not played with chess-clock enforced perfect time split - in which case go ahead spend your time).

    Edit : is there such a thing as not a Competitive Game ? You have that in your question as if there could be a different answer for casual games. That topic comes up occasionally... even casual pick-up game that are not ELO-scored are still a competitive game; it is the very nature of wargames. The opposite would be a Coop-game which Infinity isn't.
     
    bladerunner_35 and Jonno like this.
  4. QueensGambit

    QueensGambit Chickenbot herder

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2019
    Messages:
    2,213
    Likes Received:
    3,456
    csjarrat, Ashtaroth, Savnock and 6 others like this.
  5. toadchild

    toadchild Premeasure

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    4,262
    Likes Received:
    8,073
    This isn’t a rules question, it’s an etiquette question. An experienced player could hypothetically have all that information memorized; you can’t make data illegal. What matters is if you’re creating a slowdown by constantly looking stuff up, or if you’re being too much of a tryhard in what was supposed to be a chill casual game with a friend.
     
  6. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,018
    Likes Received:
    15,302
    As long as you're not recreating my list I find that allowing you to look up profiles tend to increase the game pace rather than slow it down and it levels the playing field somewhat between people too familiar with the game and those not. Particularly in an environment where looking at the desiccated remains of dead trees is seen as a nuisance.
    Looking at Army is a good thing.
    Just don't make actual lists.
     
  7. Jonno

    Jonno Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2018
    Messages:
    91
    Likes Received:
    149
    So I played at the German Championship over the weekend and in all five games I asked my opponents if they minded. No one minded, one said "I didn't know you had to ask". I wrote their lists up which was more helpful than the courtesy list as it included probable or revealed profiles that were not on the courtesy list eg units in camouflage. I felt it sped up the play time.

    We played with chess clocks and had 2.5 hour games so time was never a problem.

    What is it that you don't like about recreating your list?
     
    Savnock and QueensGambit like this.
  8. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,018
    Likes Received:
    15,302
    Takes time and reveals my shenanigans. Takes a lot of extra time if they don't manage to reveal my shenanigans and think there's cheating going on as a result
     
    Savnock and Jonno like this.
  9. Jonno

    Jonno Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2018
    Messages:
    91
    Likes Received:
    149
    Ok. I wrote the lists up during the deployment phase as my opponent explained them, I found it didn't take longer than writing them down which is what I used to do, and we play with chess clocks so time isn't really an issue. The part about revealing shenanigans is what I am most concerned about, hence this thread.
     
  10. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,018
    Likes Received:
    15,302
    Yeah... there's a big difference between Army telling them that there's 26 points missing and them fretting over that there's anything from a Liu Xing to a Hac Tao missing when it's actually a Kanren pretending to be a Hulang. Sometimes just bringing 14 units instead of full 15 is enough for people who don't build the full list in Army to be fearful of a hidden deployed unit all game.

    It's all about whether they can see missing points or not in a calculator that can't lie.
     
    Savnock and Jumara like this.
  11. QueensGambit

    QueensGambit Chickenbot herder

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2019
    Messages:
    2,213
    Likes Received:
    3,456
    From the previous thread, where a fair number of people start to get uncomfortable seems to be where an opponent uses Army to add up visible points, in order to calculate missing points and deduce which units are off the table or in marker state based on their point costs. Honestly I think this would only work if the opponent has very few hidden units, but occasionally it could lead to figuring out whether the missing unit is a Nadhir vs. a Bokhtar, for example. (And you'll still sometimes be wrong, e.g. one of the units you counted was a Bashi pretending to be an Asawira, or the missing unit is a Ragik and you'd just assumed your opponent wouldn't bring one).

    The rules still 100% don't prohibit using Army this way, but as a matter of etiquette this seems to be the point where you might find opponents start to object, and you have to start thinking about whether it's worth the bad feelings and arguments for the limited benefit you get, I guess.

    It sounds like you were using Army just to look up their available units, like "there's a camo(-6) marker, what units could it be that have Camo and Mim(-6)?" or "there are 14 units, what could be in air drop or hidden deployment?" which almost nobody objects to, and the few who do are just wrong.

    Also, @Mahtamori 's meta seems to be very... unique. He often complains of weird behaviour that nobody else seems to encounter. No offense to @Mahtamori, his perspective is valuable, just that some of the behaviour concerns he raises may be specific to his meta. Accusing the opponent of cheating because you can't figure out what their hidden unit is is a case in point. I've never seen or heard of that anywhere else, and one hopes that a TO would put a stop to it pretty quick. Anyone with a genuine concern could raise it with the TO after the game and they could check the opponent's list on OTM if they felt they needed to.

    As others have said, the only other issue is time, and chess clocks would seem to be a full answer to that concern.
     
    Jonno, toadchild and Savnock like this.
  12. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,018
    Likes Received:
    15,302
    Oh. That's from IGL and it's not a direct accusation, but prolonged moments of confusion that shouldn't have happened.

    My physical games meta is actually extremely relaxed. Got a few really good players who will be able to count fairly accurately what's missing in my list faster than I can with Army open and my list loaded, but most just don't care.
     
    #12 Mahtamori, Sep 26, 2022
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2022
  13. Triumph

    Triumph Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    5,715
    Likes Received:
    6,472
    This is one of those things that's done differently everywhere you go.

    For me locally, no, considered cheating to check on your opponent's private information with army and I run all my events with that standard.
     
    FatherKnowsBest and anubis like this.
  14. anubis

    anubis sarcastic exaggerator

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2020
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    1,188
    Funny thing here is: Imagine there would not be the option to look up ARMY all the time? Maybe your phone is gone. Or the App does not exist and the only way to build lists is on a desktop computer? Would people start to bring their Laptop to check the opponents lists up (happens already)? Or will they print all possible units on paper? Sounds absurd, doesnt it? Like people printing whole lists with every possible ltn option of every sectorial (and yes, those lists existed and where used).

    I for myself (but thats an unpopular opinion) except, that there are things in other peoples armies i don´t know although there is a possible way to look it up. I deal with it. I take it as skill advantage to KNOW what possible units my enemy can field. Which unit could be ltn.
    Knowing the enemy army is an expression of skill. Like knowing your first move, or how to use orders efficiently, or see openings in the enemies line up.

    Looking up in army is allowed cause its not explicitly forbidden. I dont do it, cause I dont like it. I do not (and can not) forbid my opponent to do it.
    My thought is just: why giving a rule the "privat information" trait if the whole unit cannot be covered and just has only this one loadout (shukra, Puppetmaster, for example).


    Imho all the information you need and should have is mentioned on the courtesy list.

    Last time I had this discussion someone replied to me "but thats just you (a veteran) j3rking off stomping a noob, cause you are more experienced than a new player."
    You can see it that way, if you want. But is this not how experience works? Having an advantage a new player does not have? Same argument could be "You win the game cause you are more experienced how to use your units and orders efficiently, and you can more easy calculate MODs." What would be the ("looking up ARMY")-equivalent? Telling my opponent, why I do which move and what I have in mind? How I bait him into advancing his units into a set trap of mine? Advicing him what would be the best move? That sounds like me playing against myself.

    Don´t get me wrong: In a training/fun/exercise game, thats a possible way to play. To speak about situations. Maybe speak about deployment, why is a unit placed at a certain position, and what could be in hidden deployment/AD. Thats why we play test-games before tournaments and thats how you learn to play and become better.

    But thats not smth I want to see at an tournament. That´s do or die time. Thats the moment when my experience trumps my opponents.
     
  15. Robock

    Robock Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,234
    Likes Received:
    852
    Well, you have a point that the equivalent tool for the exaggerated example is non-existent and would be silly; but that only refute your exaggerated example about being experienced in how you use Orders. It does nothing to refute the "skill" of knowing the Lt/Hidden/CJ options of the 41 armies you might face that was supposedly acquired and earned through experience.

    That is actually how the game was played in N2 before we even had an App. Even in N3, Corvus Belli were releasing printable PDF of all units. Printing list of possible Lt (or writing down such info on a piece of paper) is part of the toolbox that is more time-effective than Army App. Games are not school exam where notecard are considered cheating. Also, if you (not you anubis, but you refering a newb opponent) read a blog on how to improve your game and ideas of how to allocates your Order; you are more than welcomed to take notes and bring them with you during our game. Even silly notes like "Burst always matter more", "AP is better than DA after ARM8", or "Turn 1 plan : annihilate. Turn 2: annihilate some more. Turn 3: grab an objective"
     
  16. Savnock

    Savnock Nerfherder

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,555
    Likes Received:
    2,619
    This phenomenon is referred to as "Noctifear."
     
    tox, bladerunner_35, Jonno and 5 others like this.
  17. DaRedOne

    DaRedOne Morat Warrior Philosopher
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,549
    Likes Received:
    3,629
    Holy fuck, way to scarecrow the argument here, mate. If my dad were a lady, I'd have two moms.

    It doesn't matter what could be. It matters what it is.

    Army is a resource, it should and can and is used. There's a matter of etiquette and I agree that using it to stall a game or eating up game time with these kinds of checks is bad. Especially if you're playing on a timer like some tournaments use.

    However, I think using army to check options, profiles, etc is perfectly ok. Then again, I'm also ok with volunteering information of this kind. I've lost count of how many times I've said "Yeah, this interventor is my lieutenant. It's literally the only model in my list who could be it"
     
    Hecaton, bladerunner_35 and Jonno like this.
  18. Savnock

    Savnock Nerfherder

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,555
    Likes Received:
    2,619
    The reasonable middleground in the information age is to allow use of Army to look up units, but not to reconstruct lists. However you have to be aware that the latter is a possibility.

    [EDIT: And fortunately Infinity army choices are wide enough that you could anticipate reconstruction and create at least two different scenarios for those points, say one with AD troops, one with Hidden Deployment, which will pull an opponent in different tactical directions and punish them for guessing wrong].

    Reconstruction of army lists to exact points using an app does seem like too far, hobbling the uncertainty that makes Hidden Deployment, AD, etc. function as threats equal to the risk/investment required to use them. If someone is capable of doing that mentally that's fine, it's a bit like counting cards in blackjack: largely prevented because of the difficulty, and not impossible to foil if you know/anticipate that someone is doing it.

    And either way, checking Army (or any other non-game behavior) should not be allowed to slow down the game. Chess clocks help with this. (I used to hate them, now see they are the better way).

    Tangential/related: There's an interesting article in the 'Murrican news recently (AP News I think) about the phenomenon of mobile-phone-enabled cheating in major chess tournaments. Basically there are chess engines out there all over the internet that can defeat a grandmaster, and all you have to do is check your phone once or twice during a bathroom break in a match to really throw it.

    Not quite the same thing we're talking about here, but I think the similarity bears some thought: How far is too far for digital assistance, and is there a way to prevent players using it too much?

    [Maybe Infinity could be the new Go? The rules are too loose for a computer to be able to handle them! :D ]
     
    DaRedOne and Jonno like this.
  19. RolandTHTG

    RolandTHTG Still wandering through the Night

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2019
    Messages:
    383
    Likes Received:
    494
    As an Aleph player, I'm looking forward to my opponents suffering from Agemaphobia.

    I'm apparently a little weird in that I'm often using it to look up rules. Army>List>click on skill to get to wiki.
     
  20. Savnock

    Savnock Nerfherder

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,555
    Likes Received:
    2,619
    That does kind of roll off the tongue. Phrase coined!

    Given how often things change in this game (especially the bloody FAQs reversing course on things every other update it seems), having the app be the source of record makes sense.
     
  • About Us

    We are a company founded in 2001 in Cangas (Spain), and devoted to design and manufacture games and figures. Our main product, Infinity the Game, was born with the ambition to satisfy the most demanding audience, offering the best quality.

     

    Why are we here?

     

    Because we are, first and foremost, players.

  • Quick Navigation

    Open the Quick Navigation